Trace connection function

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent, and the description goes well beyond that: it names the exact executor capabilities required (getconnections, debug.info), documents the graceful-degradation contract (returns a clear { error } describing the missing capability), and describes the produced artifacts (bounded-event-snapshot, created-handle) and cost.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the core purpose and mechanism before the returns/phase metadata, and every clause carries information. It is dense and slightly long due to the metadata tail, but nothing is truly redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the return shape ({ Signal, ConnectionIndex, ConnectionCount, Function: {...} }) and the failure shape, plus prerequisites and capabilities. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented with types, defaults, and examples. The description restates the signature but adds no semantics (format, resolution order, or threading implications) beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a precise verb+resource: 'Inspect a single connection on an Instance's RBXScriptSignal and return debug metadata about the connected Luau function.' This distinguishes it from siblings like get-connection-info, count-signal-connections, and scan-connections-by-source by scoping to a single indexed connection with debug resolution.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear context ('Phase: observe; cost=medium') and prerequisites ('Requires: active-client, resolved-target', requires an executor exposing getconnections/debug.info). It does not, however, explicitly name the alternative siblings (e.g. get-connection-info) or state when-not-to-use, so routing between the many connection tools is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.